Cannibal Holocaust

A (non)movie that is the embodiment of the term “controversial". Cannibal Holocaust is a hard movie to rate. It has no story, no actors either and the only thing that Cannibal Holocaust stands on is its “behind the scenes legend" about how (un)realistic the scenes are. It achieves its aim - to disgust - indisputably excellently, but at the same time it is a boring hundred minutes of tasteless masturbation about nothing. But still you learn something from it. Perhaps that nobody has the right to kill live animals for any kind of movie. But what if that wasn’t the point after all? You don’t know? Well nor do I. Perhaps you will uncover that proclaimed supposed philosophical side of it. Or perhaps not. (26/07/2007)

It’s not easy to rate this film. Does good porn deserve some stars just for giving me an erection? Should I consider it a good thing that a film insidiously pressed the buttons of my innermost and most intimate visceral instincts, making me feel loathsome and guilty (guilty for voluntarily, voyeuristically watching the most disgusting thing under the sun)? The last shot of the film evokes the feeling that the director truly achieved his objective and won. If that’s the case, then Cannibal Holocaust deserves not three stars, but five. But that is VERY questionable and I would rather not rate this film at all. Because if that is not the case, they should burn every last copy of it. (16/07/2002)

I wonder who the real cannibals are... A combination of cinema verité and film à thèse. Heart of Darkness transferred into (post) modernity, a film that, with its limited possibilities, constantly tries to reflect on itself (the documentary is actually a transfer of the principle of film itself into the fictional world) and raises the question of instinct / violence / civilization mechanisms that supposedly keep us away from our primitive nature, but in fact they are constantly subject to it (often in the name of nobility). It's not deeply academic - rather clearly schematic - and in places it is not filmed very deftly, but it just makes sense and it has a message - if we can abstract from the outrage that someone has the audacity to kill a pig or a turtle in the name of the film, we will soon find out that film consciously deals with this "just outrage". More precisely, what hides behind it. (04/04/2013)

This ninety minute showcase of brutality outwardly tries to give the viewer the impression that it carries a message. In fact, this pious message – to highlight the dark side of man and the shameful commercialisation of violence – is just a mere excuse for Deodato to show us the harshest snuff ever committed against animals in a feature film (turtle lovers, don't watch this) and to portray in an extremely authentic way the filth (there's no other way to put it) that man can commit against man. The level of authenticity is so great that while watching it, I wondered if it was really just staged (but not with the animals, they're really live murders). Overall summary: a very artfully made disgusting film that pretends to be profound, but I don't buy it. (25/09/2003)

The first half an hour was very uninteresting and boring, but after that the film was solid! Very bold and strong for its time. The shots of the turtle guts were the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. For me it's above average found footage, but it’s a very controversial film and I don't recommend it to everyone. 70%. (04/01/2014)